Looking for an updated opinion on the Ruger MKIV 22 Pistol

Status
Not open for further replies.
whatnickname

whatnickname

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
1,004
Location
Oklahoma
Okay I’ll admit it...not very fond of changes in the world of firearms. Generally skeptical of new model anythings and usually sit back for a good while and see what the reviews say. My personal preference in the Ruger line for 22 pistols is the MKII. I happen to think that Ruger got it right when they came up with the MKII. The MKIII IMO, with the exception of the magazine release, was little more than a capitulation with the attorneys and the “We need safer guns” crowd. Seriously, a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect??? I would not have opted for either had I a vote.

Now, I understand the whole argument for the MKIV and the easier disassembly / re-assembly function. Although I’ve never had any problem disassembling or assembling any of the previous models. My problem with the MKIV is a concern that the upper and the lower assemblies will loosen over time, just as many of the AR15s have, with a corresponding loss of accuracy. All of this aside, Ruger almost always gets it right. They do their homework. Their stuff works! That said I see after market companies (Volquartsen for example) selling bedding gel blocks for the MKIV to ensure that the upper and lower units lock up tight. Is there an issue here or is this just marketing hype? Did Ruger accept this deficiency out of consideration for ease of disassembly and re-assembly figuring that the majority of the shooting public simply doesn’t shoot well enough to see any material change in accuracy?

At this point the MKIV has been around long enough that I’m sure some of you have fired thousands of rounds through yours and have field stripped your pistol dozens of times. Have you experienced any accuracy changes or loosening of the upper and lower units? After extended use, does your MKIV shoot as accurately as the older models? If so, do the after market bedding blocks correct the problem? And before anyone starts pointing out that the uppers and lowers on the older models occasionally shoot loose, I understand that. It’s an easy fix with the aid of a large vice. Just looking for an update from those shooters that have extensive experience with the MKIV.
 
I've had my Mark IV 22/45 Lite since they first came out and have had no troubles with it. This one has in excess of 30K rounds of CCI Blazers through it. It shoots as tight today as it did from the beginning.

Lite with Carolina Crusher and new grips.jpg _DSC9727.jpg
My second Mark IV was upgraded to a Volquartsen Black Mamba. It has over 90K rounds though it and still shoots sub 1 inch groups at 25 yards from a rest.

I've never had to use the gel caps to help tighten the upper to the frame.
 
The sights, barrel, and bolt are all part of the upper assembly. A slight looseness between that and the grip frame should not affect accuracy.

That said, there are many things that can be done to improve the Mark IV. Foremost among them is the removal of the magazine disconnect. Substitute a Mark II sear and hammer.
whatnickname said:
The MKIII IMO, with the exception of the magazine release, was little more than a capitulation with the attorneys and the “We need safer guns” crowd. Seriously, a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect??? I would not have opted for either had I a vote.
Click to expand...
Likewise, the Mark III can be improved by removing those features. There's an aftermarket filler piece that nicely solves the LCI problem.
 
AzShooter1 said:
I've had my Mark IV 22/45 Lite since they first came out and have had no troubles with it. This one has in excess of 30K rounds of CCI Blazers through it. It shoots as tight today as it did from the beginning.

View attachment 1074990 View attachment 1074991
My second Mark IV was upgraded to a Volquartsen Black Mamba. It has over 90K rounds though it and still shoots sub 1 inch groups at 25 yards from a rest.

I've never had to use the gel caps to help tighten the upper to the frame.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your post. This is exactly what I wanted to know.
 
AlexanderA said:
The sights, barrel, and bolt are all part of the upper assembly. A slight looseness between that and the grip frame should not affect accuracy.

That said, there are many things that can be done to improve the Mark IV. Foremost among them is the removal of the magazine disconnect. Substitute a Mark II sear and hammer.

Likewise, the Mark III can be improved by removing those features. There's an aftermarket filler piece that nicely solves the LCI problem.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
The MK2 is basically the same as the Mk1 with improved mag release, and bolt stays open on last shot
 
Opinion - it will probably take many tens of thousands of rounds to get it to “loosen up.”

To put things into context, the Smith & Wesson Victory has the barrel connected to the upper receiver and the entire upper assembly to the trigger group in a really cringeworthy fashion, but it works just fine (WHY on earth DID you do that, Smith & Wesson?!)... It doesn’t require bombproof engineering to keep a .22LR pistol together for eternity.
 
Last edited:
The Glockodile said:
Opinion - it will probably take many tens of thousands of rounds to get it to “loosen up.”

To put things into context, the Smith & Wesson Victory has the barrel connected to the upper receiver and the entire upper assembly to the trigger group in a really cringeworthy fashion, but it works just fine... It doesn’t require bombproof engineering to keep a .22LR pistol together for eternity.
Click to expand...

Kind of what I’m thinking as well. Thank you for your post.
 
doubleh said:
Hands down the best upgrade you can do is to install a Volquartson trigger kit.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The heart of the Volquartsen kit is the sear, and I agree that that's worthwhile. (It can be purchased separately.) But the Volquartsen hammer is skeletonized, and while that's claimed to give a faster lock time, it's also lighter and thus has a lighter strike on the firing pin. IMO that makes the gun less reliable. And the Volquartsen trigger itself has an odd profile.

The best improvement you can make to a Mark III or IV is to substitute the Mark II internals (thus getting rid of the magazine disconnector).
 
Actually the lighter hammer moves faster and hits the firing pin harder do to it's speed.

I've tested this a lot with my revolvers and skelonized hammers. I can reduce my trigger pull by a few pounds and still get reliable ignition with primers.
 
I own all 4 - Mark I II III and IV. All have the Volquartsen internals. Of the 4, I prefer the II, then IV, then I and last is the III. All are dead reliable, and you can't go wrong with any of them. At the present time, I'm liking the IV the most and will likely add a dot to it.

All are 5 1/2 bull, except the Mark I, which is a T 6 7/8. I could easily do without the III, but that's what I use to teach new shooters with. If I keep liking the IV so much, I could do without the II. The I was the first pistol I bought new, so I'll hold on to that for sentiment. I shoot 200 rounds a week through the Mark IV and I don't think it'll loosen up before I'm 6 feet under. 15 yards seems to be my usual practice distance.

IMG_7208.JPG
 
AlexanderA said:
Not necessarily. The heart of the Volquartsen kit is the sear, and I agree that that's worthwhile. (It can be purchased separately.) But the Volquartsen hammer is skeletonized, and while that's claimed to give a faster lock time, it's also lighter and thus has a lighter strike on the firing pin. IMO that makes the gun less reliable. And the Volquartsen trigger itself has an odd profile.

The best improvement you can make to a Mark III or IV is to substitute the Mark II internals (thus getting rid of the magazine disconnector).
Click to expand...
AlexanderA said:
Not necessarily. The heart of the Volquartsen kit is the sear, and I agree that that's worthwhile. (It can be purchased separately.) But the Volquartsen hammer is skeletonized, and while that's claimed to give a faster lock time, it's also lighter and thus has a lighter strike on the firing pin. IMO that makes the gun less reliable. And the Volquartsen trigger itself has an odd profile.

The best improvement you can make to a Mark III or IV is to substitute the Mark II internals (thus getting rid of the magazine disconnector).
Click to expand...

What ever floats your particular boat is fine with me. I haven't had problem one with my MK IV since I bought it and personally I like the Volquartson trigger. I like it much better with the trigger kit than without.
 
Last edited:
Sold my previous MKIII pistol when I bought my MKIV. Don't see myself buying any previous generations. Do however, see myself buying another MKIV down the road. I can't imagine how many rounds it would take to cause any appreciable difference in tightness on a MKIV system, I'm not worried about it in the least.

The annoying thing on the MKIV in my mind is the fact they didn't use the design change to move the serial to the grip frame. Would be really nice not having to pay an FFL fee for each additional upper barrel assembly. :thumbdown:
 
AlexanderA said:
The sights, barrel, and bolt are all part of the upper assembly. A slight looseness between that and the grip frame should not affect accuracy.

That said, there are many things that can be done to improve the Mark IV. Foremost among them is the removal of the magazine disconnect. Substitute a Mark II sear and hammer.

Likewise, the Mark III can be improved by removing those features. There's an aftermarket filler piece that nicely solves the LCI problem.
Click to expand...

I had an original that I shot the SNOT out of; tens of thousands of rounds, and I'd gotten it from my dad who'd gotten it from a friend. That went to the 'shooting' son.

I treated myself to a Mk. III 'Hunter', and it was accurate and reliable-until I had an OOB detonation that sent the cheezy LCI into my thumb so fast and hard it was numb for days. My call to Ruger only resulted in an offer to send me a new LCI; I got that, confirmed function and traded that thing like it was radioactive for a Browning Buckmark.

I see the Mk. IV lacks the LCI, so I'm considering one again, so this thread is interesting to me.

Larry
 
If you’re interested in the 22/45 Mark IV variant, TK’s Kraken frame adds a single set screw to lock in engagement. I would tend to agree however that the original design leaves no worries in my mind about longevity.


Set screw just visible in the shadow.
FD2B5D14-9B5D-4838-93A6-F3FAEF561D82.jpeg
 
I wore out the lug retainer "plug" on my MKIV Hunter. Not sure from shooting it or from solvent degradation or a combination thereof, but I made my own replacement from an old kitchen blender gasket. Works like a champ!

20220428_181205.jpg
 
justdino said:
I own all 4 - Mark I II III and IV. All have the Volquartsen internals. Of the 4, I prefer the II, then IV, then I and last is the III. All are dead reliable, and you can't go wrong with any of them. At the present time, I'm liking the IV the most and will likely add a dot to it.

All are 5 1/2 bull, except the Mark I, which is a T 6 7/8. I could easily do without the III, but that's what I use to teach new shooters with. If I keep liking the IV so much, I could do without the II. The I was the first pistol I bought new, so I'll hold on to that for sentiment. I shoot 200 rounds a week through the Mark IV and I don't think it'll loosen up before I'm 6 feet under. 15 yards seems to be my usual practice distance.

View attachment 1075253
Click to expand...

I’ve owned MKI, MKII and MKIII pistols. Wish I had not traded my MKI pistols away. Like others, the MKIII was the answer to a question no one ever asked IMO. I disposed of the MKIII and do not miss it. As far as I’m concerned Ruger got it right when they came out with the MKII...And no, I’ve never had a problem putting one back together. I was skeptical of the MKIV when they came out and the after market frame bedding blocks fed my skepticism. But as I stated, the MKIV has been out long enough that any inherent problems should have surfaced by now. Ruger has a consistent track record of making stuff that is durable and that works. That said I’m never going to part of my MKIIs...and I put Volquartsen trigger / hammer kits in all of mine. Based on what others have shared here I think a MKIV is in my future. I’ll put a Volquartsen kit in that one too. That magazine disconnect is going in the garbage...like I said, it’s the answer to a question no one ever asked as far as I’m concerned.
 
20220429_164249.jpg 20220324_143910.jpg I just recently purchased the MK IV Hunter with the large wood target grips and installed the Volquartsen accurizing kit. The new trigger makes an amazing difference. I've got extra large hands and the target grips still felt a bit too chunky. I ordered a set of the regular black plastic grips and installed them today. They aren't the most comfortable surface but fit my hands better.
 
Last edited:
Gus Chiggins said:
View attachment 1075512 View attachment 1075513 I just recently purchased the MK IV Hunter with the large wood target grips and installed the Volquartsen accurizing kit. The new trigger makes an amazing difference. I've got extra large hands and the target grips still felt a bit too chunky. I ordered a set of the regular black plastic grips and installed them today. They aren't the most comfortable surface but fit my hands better.
Click to expand...

You may find the traditional Ruger target grips with the thumb rest fit you better. I have large hands and these fit me very well.
 
whatnickname said:
You may find the traditional Ruger target grips with the thumb rest fit you better. I have large hands and these fit me very well.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll have a look for a set. If I had to pick my favorite pistol, It'd definitely be this one. I've had a couple of small issues with screws coming loose but nothing a bit of loctite wouldn't fix. Crazy accurate.
 
I picked up these factory target grips for my Mk.II some years back at a gun show. They feel very comfortable and fit my smaller size hand perfectly. They look mighty nice too!
7GMvgW3.jpg
8oubloU.jpg
 
Here is my collection of Ruger Marks. Each is pictured with the appropriate wooden grips. (I decided to go back to the original plastic grips.) They each have substituted ramp front sights, and the Marks II, III, and IV have Clark triggers. The Mark III has the Loaded Chamber Indicator removed, and a filler piece added.

Mark I:
IMG_0217a.jpg

Mark II:
IMG_0218a.jpg

Mark III:
IMG_0220a.jpg

Mark IV:
IMG_0221a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Milkmaster
  • Locked
Ruger MKIV final verdict?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
ford8nr
F
triplebike
  • Locked
Used Ruger Mark Series Pistols
Replies
24
Views
2K
sigarms228
sigarms228
whatnickname
  • Locked
Ruger MKIV - Hunter Model
Replies
22
Views
697
whatnickname
whatnickname
R
Ruger MK IV - Trigger Upgrade Questions
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
AlexanderA
A
triplebike
  • Locked
Rugers 22/45 MKIV 5.5
Replies
11
Views
463
aarondhgraham
A
Back
Top